Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Sep 2020 17:20:59 +0200 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] bitfield.h: annotate type_replace_bits functions with __must_check |
| |
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 04:03:33PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > usage of apis like u32_replace_bits() without actually catching the return > value could hide problems without any warning! > > Found this with recent usage of this api in SoundWire! > Having __must_check annotation would really catch this issues in future! > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> > --- > include/linux/bitfield.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h > index 4e035aca6f7e..eb4f69253946 100644 > --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h > +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static __always_inline __##type type##_encode_bits(base v, base field) \ > __field_overflow(); \ > return to((v & field_mask(field)) * field_multiplier(field)); \ > } \ > -static __always_inline __##type type##_replace_bits(__##type old, \ > +static __always_inline __must_check __##type type##_replace_bits(__##type old, \ > base val, base field) \ > { \ > return (old & ~to(field)) | type##_encode_bits(val, field); \ > -- > 2.21.0 >
Don't add __must_check to things that if merged will instantly cause build warnings to the system, that's just rude :(
Fix up everything first, and then try to make this type of change.
But why does this function have to be checked?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |